1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiff asserts that even in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s act of cancelling the bidding procedure based on the Defendant’s internal rule was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s act was determined as a successful bidder insofar as the requirements for the qualification examination are met, and thus, the Defendant’s act should compensate for damages equivalent to the benefits that the Plaintiff could have accrued from the Plaintiff’s performance of construction work. However, in the instant public notice of tender, the Plaintiff clearly states that “I will decide as a successful bidder the business entity deemed eligible after examining the lowest price in accordance with the relevant public notice of tender standards in order of the persons who submitted a tender at least 87.745% of the successful bidder’s bid price, from among those who submitted a tender at least the lowest price,” and clearly states that “I will determine as a successful tenderer.” The Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41603 Decided June 29, 2006 cited by the Plaintiff, stating that the highest price should be determined as a successful tenderer in the pertinent public notice of bid in order of the highest price determined as a successful tenderer in the contract.